I agree about disregarding the click during gameplay, but I wonder about precise and tactile. I can run faster in Track'n'field with leafs than microswitches.
Heh. T&F is always the title that pops up in this debate. It's true though. If T&F is important, the old style leaf-switches might be a consideration. Titles like Asteroids can sometime benefit from them as well, making those 4 dots exit the ship as close together as possible.
However, one does get used to the microswitches. The biggest difference is the resistance against the button and the travel required not only to engage the switch, but to disengage it afterward. So the actual motion is different. One would expect that the extra throw of the microswitch pushbutton might be more tiring, but the extra resistance of the leaf switch can actually make one work harder.
I have always suggested that those who want faster cycling with a microswitch try using the buttons without the springs inside. This will cause the button plunger to sit a little lower, but it also means that there is no longer that extra distance between the pushbutton and the actuator on the microswitch. This means that releasing the button plunger would then only raise it to the level of the microswitch actuator at rest, rather than the level of the internal spring as before, which overshoots what is really necessary to reset the internal actuating mechanism. Games like T&F would benefit from the increased cycling speed.
Microswitches, or "snap" switches are generally regarded as an improvement in durability, user friendliness (because of that tactile feedback indicating an actuation), and performance (less bounce, etc) In the end, however, it's purely a matter of personal taste.
RandyT